Germanic New Medicine - Revision history

Halbmond: /* Handedness */

2013-03-10T23:22:06Z

Handedness

Halbmond: /* Invention of the New Medicine in 1981 */

2013-03-10T23:13:08Z

Invention of the New Medicine in 1981

Halbmond: /* External and Internal Contradictions and Obvious Errors */

2013-03-10T17:18:28Z

External and Internal Contradictions and Obvious Errors

Show changes

Halbmond: /* Sceptical view of the GNM */

2013-03-10T17:04:09Z

Sceptical view of the GNM

Halbmond: /* Notable cases of failure */

2013-03-10T16:58:20Z

Notable cases of failure

Halbmond: /* No published reports about healed cancer patients so far */

2013-03-10T16:54:31Z

No published reports about healed cancer patients so far

Halbmond at 16:49, 10 March 2013

2013-03-10T16:49:31Z

Halbmond at 16:04, 10 March 2013

2013-03-10T16:04:48Z

EsoTypo: OL

2011-03-15T21:36:18Z

Pamela: /* References */

2011-02-23T09:28:34Z

References

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ==Handedness==
-[[image:handedness.jpg|600px|thumb|applause-test for handedness according to Hamer]]
+[[image:handedness.jpg|600px|thumb|Applause-test for handedness according to Hamer]]
-In new medicine, handedness is important as it determined the location of an eventual disease like cancer. But in relation to handedness in man, Hamer made many erroneous statements in obvious contrast to actual medical knowledge.
+In new medicine, handedness is important as it is believed to determine the location of an eventual disease like cancer. But in relation to handedness in humans, Hamer made many erroneous statements in obvious contrast to actual medical knowledge.
-*'''monozygotic twins and handness''': Hamer is convinced that in monozygotic twins one was always left-handed while the other was one right-handed, but he gives no exact reference for this opinion.<ref>[...] Interessant ist in dem Zusammenhang auch, daß bei eineiigen Zwillingen stets einer linkshändig und der andere rechtshändig ist [...] (from: http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/handigkeit.html)</ref><ref>Hamer RG: Vermächtnis einer Neuen Medizin. Teil 2. Die 5 Biologischen Gesetze - Grundlage der gesamten Medizin.. 7. Aufl. Amici di Dirk - Ediciones de la Nueva Medicina S.L., E-Fuengirola 1999 ISBN 84-930091-0-5</ref> This opinion can easily be checked and there exists scientific literature dealing with this issue. Incidence of left-handedness in singletons, monozygotic and dizygotic twins is around 10%-15%, and there is no source stating that left-handedness was exactly 50% in monozygotic twins.<ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407<br>
+*'''Monozygotic twins and handness''': Hamer is convinced that, in monozygotic twins, one was always left-handed while the other one was right-handed, but gives no exact reference for this opinion.<ref>[...] Interessant ist in dem Zusammenhang auch, daß bei eineiigen Zwillingen stets einer linkshändig und der andere rechtshändig ist [...] (from: http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/handigkeit.html)</ref><ref>Hamer RG: Vermächtnis einer Neuen Medizin. Teil 2. Die 5 Biologischen Gesetze - Grundlage der gesamten Medizin.. 7. Aufl. Amici di Dirk - Ediciones de la Nueva Medicina S.L., E-Fuengirola 1999 ISBN 84-930091-0-5</ref> This opinion can easily be checked and there is scientific literature dealing with this issue. Incidence of left-handedness in singletons, monozygotic, and dizygotic twins is around 10%-15%, and there is no source stating that left-handedness was exactly 50% in monozygotic twins.<ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407<br>
 In the course of the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS), handedness was assessed as part of a genealogical study (Meulemans et al., 1995) in 1616 twins (808 twin pairs) aged 6 to 28. Our findings are that, in this large population-based study with known placentation and zygosity, the often observed higher frequency of left-handedness in twins is confirmed, that it appears to be independent of zygosity and chorion type, and that the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical.</ref> The autor Derom writes: ''[...] the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical [...]''.<ref>Shimizu A, Comparison of patterns of handedness between twins and singletons in Japan, Cortex 1983 Sep;19(3):345-52<br>
 The handedness questionnaire of thirteen items which was identical to that employed in our previous study on singletons was administered to 62 monozygotic (MZ) and 48 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs in Japan. Information on forced conversion of hand usage in childhood was also obtained. Results indicated that the incidence of left-handedness was 3.6% and that of non-right-handedness (which includes mixed- and left-handedness) was 5.9%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of left-handedness or of non-right-handedness between MZ and DZ twin groups. The proportion of converted right-handedness in MZ twins was slightly higher than in DZ twins. MZ pairs were somewhat more concordant for handedness than DZ pairs. Item analysis indicated that the incidence of individuals who use the left hand for writing and eating was only 0.9% and 1.8%, respectively. A comparison of the results of the present survey on twins with those of our previous one on singletons revealed that the incidence of left-handedness or non-right-handedness in twins is the same as that in singletons. Twins (especially MZ twins) have experienced a forced conversion to right-hand usage more frequently than singletons.</ref>
-*'''Hamerian applause-test and prayer-test'''. Hamer uses his own and controversial test for handedness, the so-called ''Applause test'' and a so-called ''Bet-Test'' (prayer-test). These simple tests have never been scientifically validated and have a pseudoscientific character. No information regarding these tests can be found in scientific databases. Using these tests, some New Medicine patients were attributed a conflicting handedness by different persons, creating some confusion.
+*'''Hamerian Applause Test and Prayer Test'''. Hamer uses his own and controversial test for handedness, the so-called ''Applause test'' and a so-called ''Bet-Test'' (prayer test). These simple tests have never been scientifically validated and are of pseudoscientific character. No information regarding these tests can be found in scientific databases. Using these tests, some New Medicine patients were attributed a conflicting handedness by different persons, creating some confusion.
-*'''Handedness and body side to cradle babies'''. Hamer is convinced that women and men would cradle their babies always on the opposite side of her dominant hand. A left-handed woman would therefore always hold her baby on the right side of her body. This is not true, and many scientific sources tell us something different. Men and women hold their baby mostly (80%) on their left side, regardless of handedness. This is also true for apes (primates). <ref>Salk L, The effects of the normal heartbeat sound on the behavior of the new-born infant: implications for mental health. World Mental Health 1960 12, 168-175</ref><ref>De Chateau, Left-side preference for holding and carrying newborn infants. Parental holding and carrying during the first week of life, J Nerv Ment Dis 1983 Apr;171(4):241-5,Four groups of adults were studied: new mothers, new fathers, fathers with older children, and males without children of their own. Nearly 80 per cent of all newly delivered mothers and fathers held their newborn infant against a point to the left of the body midline. Handedness and parity did not influence this preference, nor did the sex of the infant. The present study also demonstrates that new fathers during the neonatal period, as well as fathers with older infants, display a significantly greater preference for holding the infant to the left than males without own children and with or without experience of other children. Individual mother-father pairs held the infant on the same side of the body in the majority of couples studied. The pattern of infant-carrying showed no significant in-between group differences. The possible significance of these observations and their relation to other parental behavior are discussed.</ref><ref>Mason Giorgia, Why do humans and apes cradle babies on their left side? New Scientist, 21. July 1990, 28.</ref><ref>Sieratzki JS, Neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric perspectives on maternal cradling preferences, Epidemiol Psychiatr Soc 2002 Jul-Sep;11(3):170-6
+*'''Handedness and body side to cradle babies'''. Hamer is convinced that women and men will always cradle their babies on the opposite side of their dominant hand. A left-handed woman thus was to hold the baby on the right side of her body. This is not true, and many scientific sources tell us something different. Men and women hold their baby mostly (80%) on their left side, regardless of handedness. This is also true for apes (primates). <ref>Salk L, The effects of the normal heartbeat sound on the behavior of the new-born infant: implications for mental health. World Mental Health 1960 12, 168-175</ref><ref>De Chateau, Left-side preference for holding and carrying newborn infants. Parental holding and carrying during the first week of life, J Nerv Ment Dis 1983 Apr;171(4):241-5,Four groups of adults were studied: new mothers, new fathers, fathers with older children, and males without children of their own. Nearly 80 per cent of all newly delivered mothers and fathers held their newborn infant against a point to the left of the body midline. Handedness and parity did not influence this preference, nor did the sex of the infant. The present study also demonstrates that new fathers during the neonatal period, as well as fathers with older infants, display a significantly greater preference for holding the infant to the left than males without own children and with or without experience of other children. Individual mother-father pairs held the infant on the same side of the body in the majority of couples studied. The pattern of infant-carrying showed no significant in-between group differences. The possible significance of these observations and their relation to other parental behavior are discussed.</ref><ref>Mason Giorgia, Why do humans and apes cradle babies on their left side? New Scientist, 21. July 1990, 28.</ref><ref>Sieratzki JS, Neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric perspectives on maternal cradling preferences, Epidemiol Psychiatr Soc 2002 Jul-Sep;11(3):170-6
 OBJECTIVE: To assess competing explanations for the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side and to propose a relation to hemispheric asymmetry for social attachment and communication behaviour. METHODS: A review of observational, experimental, physiological, psychological, neuro-physiological, and neuro-psychological studies, including new findings on the cradling behaviour of mothers with auditory or visual impairments. RESULTS: A significant left-cradling bias is observed in both right- and left-handed mothers which cannot adequately be explained by arguments based on handedness or closer contact to the soothing sound of the maternal heartbeat. Observations of primate behaviour have led to the suggestion that the left-cradling bias may be related to a left visual field (right hemisphere) advantage for monitoring an infant's facial expressions of distress. However, more than just monitoring, cradling subserves the mother's connection with the infant. For that reason, we have suggested that left cradling might be related to a right hemisphere specialisation for emotional communication, i.e. the speech melody, smiles, signals, and stroking which mothers use to interact with their infants. Studies of mother-infant interaction show that the sound of the mother's voice is more soothing when cradling on the left, more stimulating when cradling on the right. Cradling laterality may thus be related to emotional state and behavioural intent. There is also evidence to suggest that left cradling is linked to a special role of the right hemisphere in social attachment behaviour. This function may be disturbed in mothers with post-natal depression who show abnormal right hemisphere activity. CONCLUSION: Cradling embodies the symbiotic relationship between mother and infant; various lines of evidence support the suggestion that the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side is related to a right hemisphere dominance for social attachment and communication behaviour.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, Side preference in women and men when holding their newborn child: psychological background, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1984 Jan;69(1):13-23
 In a prospective study 81 randomly selected parents awaiting their first baby were interviewed early during pregnancy and again during the week after delivery. About 80% of the women and their partners were found to hold their child to the left, and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. There was no relation between side preference in child holding in the couples. Common to both sexes is the trend that left-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of their own sex whereas right-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of the opposite sex. Right-holders have also more often had mental symptoms prior to pregnancy and were concerned about the pregnancy, delivery and health of the child at birth.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, The couvade syndrome and side preference in child holding, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1985 Mar;71(3):311-4,In a prospective study of expectant couples 20% of the men suffered from the couvade syndrome. About 80% of both women and men hold their newborn infant to the left and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. Compared with others, men with the syndrome more frequently developed a right-side preference in child holding. Right-holding men more often had sons than daughters. Right-holders with the couvade syndrome were more often attached to and more closely identified with their mothers than were right-holding non-sufferers.</ref><ref>Ginsburg HJ, Maternal holding preferences: a consequence of newborn head-turning response, Child Dev 1979 Mar;50(1):280-1,

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 ==Invention of the New Medicine in 1981==
-Some time after the death of his son Dirk Hamer (see his [[Ryke Geerd Hamer|biography]]), he began to believe that any disease, most notably cancer, was not dangerous in itself, but merely a biological symptom of a psychological conflict situation that he calls biological conflict. The loss of his son Dirk led Hamer to invent his "New Medicine" in autumn 1981, while living in Germany. According to Hamer, the shock of the death of his son caused him to develop testicular cancer within two months after the event and also caused breast cancer in his wife Sigrid. His wife was cured by Hamer and was his first patient, she died in 1985, however, after having refused any conventional cure by modern medicine.
+Some time after the death of his son Dirk (see his [[Ryke Geerd Hamer|biography]]), Hamer began to believe that any disease, most notably cancer, was not dangerous in itself, but merely a biological symptom of a psychological conflict situation which he calls biological conflict. The loss of his son led Hamer to invent his "New Medicine" in autumn 1981, while living in Germany. According to Hamer, the shock of his son's death caused him to develop testicular cancer within two months after the event and also caused breast cancer in his wife Sigrid. Being his first patient and refusing any conventional cure by modern medicine, the only medical treatment she received was by R.G. Hamer. Sigrid Hamer died of cancer in 1985.
 ==See also==

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Ryke Geerd Hamer developed testicular cancer himself in 1978 (or at the beginning of 1979), but seeked professional help and underwent surgery in a clinic in Tübingen. He survived this miraculously, according to his own opinion he should have had a survival chance of only&nbsp;2%.<ref>http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html</ref> His tumor appeared only two months after the death of his son Dirk (which was in December 1978), and Hamer was convinced of this event being the cause of his cancer.<ref>http://www.newmedicine.ca/interview.php [...] in 1978 I developed testicular cancer from such a biological conflict, a so-called "loss conflict [...]"</ref>. But cancer needs years to develop, and not two months. His wife died from breast cancer in 1985, a GNM therapy by Hamer was not successful. Hamer said this at the end of 1985 and declared his wife to be his ''first patient after discovering the iron rules of cancer''.
-==Sceptical view of the GNM==
+==Sceptical view of GNM==
 [[image:sciencefaith.jpg|650px|thumb]]
-Hamer never published his hypotheses in a scientific paper (his doctoral thesis has nothing to do with it), and apart from an article by Danish holistic physician (now barred) Sören Ventegodt which appeared in a rather unimportant journal<ref>Ventegodt et al. Fulltext: http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2005.03.16.pdf</ref> no scientific paper analysing his method can be found in databases. The author Ventegodt also lost his medical license in the meantime and has been criticized for working in a pseudoscientific way, and it seems that the journal accepts papers after receiving a ''payment''.<ref>http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/more-dangerous-pseudo-science/ Ventegodt and pseudoscience</ref> This makes it more difficult to evaluate his ideas.
+Hamer never published his hypotheses in a scientific paper (his doctoral thesis has nothing to do with it), and apart from an article by Danish holistic physician (now barred) Sören Ventegodt which appeared in a rather unimportant journal<ref>Ventegodt et al. Fulltext: http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2005.03.16.pdf</ref>, no scientific paper analysing his method can be found in databases. The author Ventegodt also lost his medical licence in the meantime and has been criticized for working in a pseudoscientific way; furthermore the journal apparently accepts papers after receiving a ''payment''.<ref>http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/more-dangerous-pseudo-science/ Ventegodt and pseudoscience</ref> This makes it more difficult to evaluate his ideas.
-The inventor Hamer does not present scientific proofs in favour of his method, and does not present controlled and placebo-controlled prospective studies supporting it. Instead, he shows retrospectively filtered reports and letters of anecdotal value, often written by himself or laymen.
+Hamer does not present scientific proof in favour of his method, and does not present controlled and placebo-controlled prospective studies supporting it. Instead, he shows retrospectively filtered reports and letters of anecdotal value, often written by himself or laypersons.
-Hamer does never recognise any limit of his medical knowledge (he could not work as physician after 1986) and behaves as an ''expert'' in every branch of medicine, exactly as described by the ''Dunning-Kruger effect''<ref>Justin Kruger, David Dunning (1999), "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. PMID 10626367. [http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf]</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect</ref> becoming a danger for his patients.
+Hamer does never recognise any limit of his medical knowledge (he could not work as physician after 1986) and behaves as an ''expert'' in every branch of medicine, exactly as described by the ''Dunning-Kruger effect''<ref>Justin Kruger, David Dunning (1999), "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. PMID 10626367. [http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf]</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect</ref>, becoming a danger to his patients.
 ==External and Internal Contradictions and Obvious Errors==

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Notable cases of failure==
-Many former GNM patients suffering cancer died so far. More than 140&nbsp;persons are known so far in 2008. This is documented in different court files and sentences, newspaper articles, reports of relatives, and in the list presented by Aribert Deckers.<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> Many of them had a good chance to survive as they had a cancer responding well to modern therapies (e.g. testicular cancer, Hodgkin-lymphoma). A detailed presentation of notable cases can be seen here: [[Victims of New Medicine]].
+Many former GNM patients suffering from cancer died. More than 140&nbsp;persons were known as of 2008. This is documented in different court files and sentences, newspaper articles, reports of relatives, and in the list presented by Aribert Deckers.<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> Many of them had a good chance to survive as they had a cancer responding well to modern therapies (e.g. testicular cancer, Hodgkin-lymphoma). A detailed presentation of notable cases can be seen here: [[Victims of New Medicine]].
-Ryke Geerd Hamer developed testicular cancer himself in 1978 (or at the beginning of 1979), but seeked professional help and underwent surgery in a clinic in Tübingen. He survived this miraculously, according to his own opinion he should have had a survival chance of only&nbsp;2%.<ref>http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html</ref> His tumor appeared only two month after the death of his son Dirk (that was December 1978), and Hamer was convinced that event was the cause of his cancer.<ref>http://www.newmedicine.ca/interview.php [...] in 1978 I developed testicular cancer from such a biological conflict, a so-called "loss conflict [...]"</ref>. But cancer needs years to develop, and not two months. His wife died from breast cancer in 1985, a GNM therapy by Hamer was not successful. Hamer said this at the end of 1985 and declared his wife to be his ''first patient after discovering the iron rules of cancer''.
+Ryke Geerd Hamer developed testicular cancer himself in 1978 (or at the beginning of 1979), but seeked professional help and underwent surgery in a clinic in Tübingen. He survived this miraculously, according to his own opinion he should have had a survival chance of only&nbsp;2%.<ref>http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html</ref> His tumor appeared only two months after the death of his son Dirk (which was in December 1978), and Hamer was convinced of this event being the cause of his cancer.<ref>http://www.newmedicine.ca/interview.php [...] in 1978 I developed testicular cancer from such a biological conflict, a so-called "loss conflict [...]"</ref>. But cancer needs years to develop, and not two months. His wife died from breast cancer in 1985, a GNM therapy by Hamer was not successful. Hamer said this at the end of 1985 and declared his wife to be his ''first patient after discovering the iron rules of cancer''.
 ==Sceptical view of the GNM==

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==No published reports about healed cancer patients so far==
-No report about healed cancer patients who had survived a GNM therapy and who were not treated by academic medicine has been published so far, only some anecdotal stories are available. For instance a German person asserts that he survived leukemia eleven times thanks to Hamer's method,<ref>case Joswig, a German extremist right admirer of GNM who claims to be a citizen of a ''Deutsches Reich'' (German empire)</ref> another asserts to have been healed miraculously from an atheroma (this is not cancer), and someone thinks that his torticollis was in fact a non-Hodgkin lymphoma<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/NeuMed/Sonderpr/20000101_NonHodgkin.htm</ref>. Admirers and followers of GNM think that thousands of cancer patients have been healed by GNM. A neutral observer must wonder why they do not show up to support this method.
+No report about healed cancer patients who survived a GNM therapy and who were not treated by academic medicine has been published so far, only some anecdotal stories are available. For instance a German person asserts that he survived leukemia eleven times thanks to Hamer's method,<ref>case Joswig, a German extremist right admirer of GNM who claims to be a citizen of ''Deutsches Reich'' (German empire)</ref> another person asserts to have been healed miraculously from an atheroma (this is not cancer), and someone thinks that his torticollis was in fact a non-Hodgkin lymphoma<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/NeuMed/Sonderpr/20000101_NonHodgkin.htm</ref>. Admirers and followers of GNM believe that thousands of cancer patients have been healed by GNM. A neutral observer must wonder why they do not show up to support this method.
 ==Notable cases of failure==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[image:gnmen.jpg|300px|thumb]]
 [[image:Hamer2.jpg|Inventor R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;Hamer|thumb]]
-'''Germanic New Medicine'''&reg; (GNM) (formerly called ''New Medicine'' and often called ''New German[ic] Medicine'') is a pseudoscientific, alternative medicine which appeared in Germany in 1981. It has also been a registered trade mark since 2003. Many hopeful cancer patients treated by this method have died, at least 140 (see details below).
+'''Germanic New Medicine'''&reg; (GNM) (formerly called ''New Medicine'' and often called ''New German[ic] Medicine'') is a pseudoscientific, alternative medicine which appeared in Germany in 1981. It is also a registered trade mark since 2003. Many hopeful cancer patients treated by this method have died, at least 140 (see details below).
-Germanic New Medicine was invented by barred German physician [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]], who has been prosecuted in several European countries for practicing medicine illegally. Hamer is currently living in Sandefjord, in the south of Norway. His address is the same as his publishing company ''GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN FORLAG DR.&nbsp;HAMER'' Sandkollveien&nbsp;11, N-3229&nbsp;Sandefjord/Norway. In two interviews in September 2007, Hamer stated that he fled from Spain to Norway to escape an arrest warrant from Germany. The warrant was issued on the grounds of ''incitement of hatred'' (article&nbsp;130 of German criminal law), because of Hamer's many public anti-semitic statements in open letters and on web pages, accusing an alleged international Jewish conspiracy (in particular the New York B'nai B'rith) of having killed two billion people by hiding the truth about New Medicine, which Hamer claims can heal 98% of all cancer cases.
+Germanic New Medicine was invented by barred German physician [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]], who has been prosecuted in several European countries for practicing medicine illegally. Hamer is currently living in Sandefjord, in the south of Norway. His address is the same as his publishing company ''GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN FORLAG DR.&nbsp;HAMER'' Sandkollveien&nbsp;11, N-3229&nbsp;Sandefjord/Norway. In two interviews in September 2007, Hamer stated that he fled from Spain to Norway to escape an arrest warrant from Germany. The warrant was issued on grounds of ''incitement of hatred'' (article&nbsp;130 of German criminal law), because of Hamer's many public anti-semitic statements in open letters and on web pages, accusing an alleged international Jewish conspiracy (in particular the New York B'nai B'rith) of having killed two billion people by hiding the truth about New Medicine, which Hamer claims can heal 98% of all cancer cases.
-Due to the fact that its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages on the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations supporting his doctrines.
+Since its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages on the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations supporting his doctrines.
 According to Hamer, every disease of either man, animal or plant was the result of an earlier - not well-defined - ''biological conflict'', obeying to no more than five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' which he claims to have discovered, but which no scientist has been able to confirm as of yet. In addition to this, Hamer states that only the effects of radiation and injuries were not the result of a biological conflict.
-GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and a primitive reinvention of a number of obsolete concepts from psychosomatic medicine, mixed with pseudoscientific, unvalidated tests of Hamer's own invention and a grotesquely erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas have already been proposed before (e.g. ''Christian Science'' and anthroposophic medicine etc.). What is usually called disease or symptom, Hamer views as a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm''), being the reaction of a healthy organism to alleged biological conflicts. According to Hamer's theory, all severe diseases, such as cancer, can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases by performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' on the principles of the GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients are consistently attributed to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', e.g. the use of morphine, or the patient's not being totally committed to the GNM.
+GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and may be seen as a primitive reinvention of some obsolete concepts of psychosomatic medicine, mixed with pseudoscientific, unvalidated tests of Hamer's own invention and a grotesquely erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas have already been proposed before (e.g. ''Christian Science'' and anthroposophic medicine etc.). What is usually called disease or symptom, Hamer considers a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm''), being the reaction of a healthy organism to alleged biological conflicts. According to Hamer's theory, all severe diseases, such as cancer, can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases by performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' according to GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients are consistently attributed to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', the use of morphine, or the patient's not being totally committed to GNM.
 ==Germanic==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''Germanic New Medicine'''&reg; (GNM) (formerly called ''New Medicine'' and often called ''New German[ic] Medicine'') is a pseudoscientific, alternative medicine which appeared in Germany in 1981. It has also been a registered trade mark since 2003. Many hopeful cancer patients treated by this method have died, at least 140 (see details below).
-The Germanic New Medicine was invented by barred German physician [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]], who has been prosecuted in several European countries for illegally practicing medicine. Hamer is currently living in Sandefjord, in the south of Norway. His address is the same as his publishing company ''GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN FORLAG DR.&nbsp;HAMER'' Sandkollveien&nbsp;11, N-3229&nbsp;Sandefjord/Norway. In two interviews in September 2007 Hamer stated that he fled from Spain to Norway to escape an arrest warrant from Germany. The warrant was issued on the grounds of ''incitement of hatred against a minority of the population'' (article&nbsp;130 of German criminal law), because of Hamer's many public anti-semitic statements in open letters and on web pages and accusing an international Jewish conspiracy (in particular the New York B'nai B'rith) of having killed two billion people by means of hiding the truth about New Medicine, which Hamer claims can heal 98% of all cancer cases.
+Germanic New Medicine was invented by barred German physician [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]], who has been prosecuted in several European countries for practicing medicine illegally. Hamer is currently living in Sandefjord, in the south of Norway. His address is the same as his publishing company ''GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN FORLAG DR.&nbsp;HAMER'' Sandkollveien&nbsp;11, N-3229&nbsp;Sandefjord/Norway. In two interviews in September 2007, Hamer stated that he fled from Spain to Norway to escape an arrest warrant from Germany. The warrant was issued on the grounds of ''incitement of hatred'' (article&nbsp;130 of German criminal law), because of Hamer's many public anti-semitic statements in open letters and on web pages, accusing an alleged international Jewish conspiracy (in particular the New York B'nai B'rith) of having killed two billion people by hiding the truth about New Medicine, which Hamer claims can heal 98% of all cancer cases.
-Due to the fact that its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, the GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages on the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations that support his doctrines.
+Due to the fact that its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages on the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations supporting his doctrines.
-According to Hamer, every disease of either man, animal or plant is the result of an earlier - not well-defined - ''biological conflict'', obeying to no more than five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' which he claims to have discovered, but which no scientist has been able to confirm as yet. In addition to this, Hamer states that only the effects of radiation and injuries are not the result of a biological conflict.
+According to Hamer, every disease of either man, animal or plant was the result of an earlier - not well-defined - ''biological conflict'', obeying to no more than five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' which he claims to have discovered, but which no scientist has been able to confirm as of yet. In addition to this, Hamer states that only the effects of radiation and injuries were not the result of a biological conflict.
-GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and a primitive reinvention of a number of obsolete concepts from psychosomatic medicine, mixed with pseudoscientific, unvalidated tests of Hamer's own invention and a grotesquely erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas have already been proposed before (e.g. ''Christian Science'' and anthroposophic medicine...). What is usually called disease or symptom, is seen by Hamer as a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm''), being the reaction of a healthy organism to the alleged biological conflicts. According to Hamer's theory, all severe diseases, such as cancer, can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases by performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' on the principles of the GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients are consistently attributed to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', e.g. the use of morphine, or the patient's not being totally committed to the GNM.
+GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and a primitive reinvention of a number of obsolete concepts from psychosomatic medicine, mixed with pseudoscientific, unvalidated tests of Hamer's own invention and a grotesquely erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas have already been proposed before (e.g. ''Christian Science'' and anthroposophic medicine etc.). What is usually called disease or symptom, Hamer views as a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm''), being the reaction of a healthy organism to alleged biological conflicts. According to Hamer's theory, all severe diseases, such as cancer, can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases by performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' on the principles of the GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients are consistently attributed to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', e.g. the use of morphine, or the patient's not being totally committed to the GNM.
 Until now, Hamer has failed to present any literature supporting his ideas, such as peer-reviewed articles in serious medical journals and to perform scientific studies into the efficacy of his treatments.

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 *[[Testimonies of former associates of Hamer]]
-==Versions of this article in other languages==
+{{OtherLang|ge=Germanische Neue Medizin|en=Germanic New Medicine|fr=Nouvelle Médecine Germanique|it=Nuova Medicina Germanica}}
 ==References==